McCarrick whistleblower: ‘At last, somebody was going to pay attention to what I had to say’
McCarrick whistleblower: ‘At last, somebody was going to pay attention to what I had to say’
For over three decades, Father Boniface Ramsey attempted to inform any Church authority willing to hear about his worries concerning the misconduct of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick with young priests and seminarians.
“He undoubtedly received the benefit of the doubt,” Father Ramsey shared with Our Sunday Visitor during a phone interview a few days ago. after the Vatican released its 450-page report regarding how McCarrick, the ex-cardinal-archbishop of Washington, ascended the church hierarchy despite widespread allegations of sexual misconduct.
Father Ramsey was among the initial individuals to expose the misconduct of McCarrick, who was dismissed from the clerical state by the Vatican in January 2019 after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith determined that he was guilty of “solicitation in the sacrament of confession and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.”
In the late 1980s, Father Ramsey served as a Dominican priest and was part of the faculty at Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University in New Jersey when he informed his rector about the accounts he was encountering — specifically, that McCarrick, who was the archbishop of Newark at the time, was inviting seminarians for overnight stays at his beach house on the Jersey Shore and was sharing his bed with them.
These worries were never addressed, but Father Ramsey continued to raise the alarm within Church circles as he subsequently became a parish priest for the Archdiocese of New York, while McCarrick went on to be awarded a cardinal’s red hat.
In 2018, after allegations of child sexual abuse against McCarrick surfaced, Father Ramsey reached out to the media with his worries, which helped to spur calls for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s career.
Father Ramsey, 75, currently the pastor of St. Joseph Church in New York City, expressed a sense of justification now that the McCarrick Report has been released. He contemplated on the report’s findings and expressed his views on how McCarrick managed to evade responsibility for many years.
Our Sunday Visitor: What stands out to you when you review the McCarrick report?
Father Boniface Ramsey: Perusing the report, I now understand I wasn’t the sole (whistleblower). I likely was the initial person in the seminary to voice my concerns. Yet, I was definitely not the first to reach out to the nuncio back then. There was considerable activity and numerous worries regarding McCarrick. However, some of this was not particularly well-targeted.
Additionally, towards the start of the report, there exists a segment concerning a mother who corresponded with every cardinal in the United States regarding her worries after witnessing (McCarrick) place his hands on her son’s thighs. She observed this and made an effort to address the situation, yet never received a reply. It truly devastates you. I mean, here is a mother attempting to safeguard her children. To me, that is the most impactful aspect of everything I’ve encountered so far.
Our Sunday Visitor: Do you believe clericalism contributed to McCarrick’s ascent within the church hierarchy?
Father Ramsey: He undoubtedly received the benefit of the doubt. There were bishops in New Jersey who witnessed McCarrick’s actions. The report highlights an event in Newark, held in a large banquet hall, where McCarrick was observed sitting with a young priest and reportedly fondling the young man in front of several bishops and a monsignor, who allegedly remained silent until he was questioned for the report. However, when the moment arose for the bishops to express their opinion on whether McCarrick should be sent to Washington or promoted, they chose not to speak up. These bishops neglected their duty.
Our Sunday Visitor: In the late 1980s, while serving as a seminary educator in New Jersey, you were one of the initial priests to express worries regarding McCarrick’s conduct. What inspired you to speak up?
Father Ramsey: I was a Dominican priest when I entered the seminary in 1987 or 1988. You can be certain that these (rumors) were circulating long before my arrival. I brought my worries to the rector. The only reason I could have done this was due to my status as a Dominican, not beholden to the archbishop in the manner that diocesan priests would have been.
This was something that nearly everyone was aware of. Undoubtedly, most of the priests at the seminary were informed about it. I would assume many priests outside the seminary were aware of it too. However, the sentiment at that time appeared to be, “This is quite unusual, but this is how the archbishop is. He invites individuals in this manner, yet never makes physical contact.” It was considered quite peculiar, but permissible.
Our Sunday Visitor: Have you ever discussed McCarrick’s actions with other Church leaders?
Father Ramsey: In July 2004, I had just begun my ministry in the Archdiocese of New York, although technically I was not yet incardinated. One day, Cardinal Edward Egan [the previous archbishop of New York] summoned me to his office, and I ended up spending roughly an hour with him. Somehow, the topic of McCarrick was mentioned. I made a comment regarding McCarrick, and it was evident that Cardinal Egan was not interested in discussing it. He gestured his hands in my direction as if to indicate, “We’re not addressing this matter.” Egan was aware of the rumors. Perhaps [former New York archbishop Cardinal John] O’Connor had informed him, but then again, everyone was aware of those rumors.
Our Sunday Visitor: What prompted you to contact Cardinal Seán O’Malley, who is in charge of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, after witnessing then-Cardinal McCarrick at Cardinal Egan’s funeral in 2015?
Father Ramsey: Seeing (McCarrick) there truly disturbed me. At that moment, I reached out to O’Malley, receiving a bland reply from his assistant. I sought advice from a reliable friend I had consulted since the 1980s regarding what steps I should take. He advised, “Just let (McCarrick) be.” He mentioned that McCarrick would eventually face his ultimate judgment. Thus, I chose not to take action. For three years, up until 2018, I didn’t take any steps.
Our Sunday Visitor: In 2000, you expressed your worries to the then papal nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo. However, the sole reply you got was a vague mention in a 2006 correspondence from the Vatican regarding a different issue?
Father Ramsey: That’s accurate. Oblique is indeed the appropriate term. And you know what, you aren’t meant to retain those letters. I kept it, along with the envelope, to be honest, without informing anyone. It was only in 2018 that I understood this was significant. Someone followed up with me on this, and I succeeded in finding the letter among my mail. It was at that moment that I recognized what a significant letter this was.
Our Sunday Visitor: What prompted you to express your worries publicly in 2018?
Father Ramsey: I reached out to The New York Times as soon as the child abuse came to light. I aimed to provide a fuller understanding. My knowledge didn’t pertain to children; it involved seminarians. At that moment, it seemed that finally, someone would acknowledge my perspective. Naturally, once it appears in the Times, it gains credibility.
Our Sunday Visitor: What was your response upon discovering the claims related to the sexual exploitation of minors?
Father Ramsey: That was entirely unfamiliar to me, just as it was to everyone else. I don’t believe anyone had prior knowledge of that. I would assume those are two entirely distinct matters: adult harassment/abuse and child abuse. I would have assumed that an individual who mistreats adults wouldn’t necessarily have an interest in children, or the other way around. Those are two separate tendencies. That was my first impression.
Our Sunday Visitor: Do you believe the clerical culture outlined in the McCarrick Report can be eliminated?
Father Ramsey: No, it won’t be completely eradicated until there is no advantage in being a clergyman. Only at that point will the clerical culture be eliminated. However, even in scenarios where the Church faces persecution, there remains a camaraderie among the clergy. This sense of camaraderie is what supported McCarrick. The presumption of innocence in his favor was quite significant.
Our Sunday Visitor: Pope John Paul II, and to a smaller degree, Pope Benedict XVI, receive criticism in the report for their management of the issues concerning McCarrick. Are such criticisms justified?
Father Ramsey: Based on all I’ve listened to and studied, particularly regarding the Marcial Maciel situation, John Paul struggled to accept these allegations concerning clergy. He likely had not encountered such matters before. The document indicates that John Paul II had witnessed instances of priests being ostracized by the Communist government in Poland, leading him to think that something similar might have been happening in this case.
As for Benedict XVI, he arrived with great enthusiasm. He intended to rectify the corruption within the Church. That was somewhat of his address to all the cardinals [prior to the 2005 conclave]. Yet, he ultimately did not follow through. He took some actions, but it wasn’t his responsibility to personally question McCarrick, though I believe he didn’t need to. Regardless, McCarrick deceived. McCarrick was untrustworthy. What can you do when a cardinal deceives before you? Benedict could have been more assertive about his intentions, yet he was not. I believe that is evident in the report.
Our Sunday Visitor: Over the past few years, Pope Francis has introduced changes concerning the accountability of bishops, lifting the “pontifical secret” in cases of clergy abuse, and directing Church leaders to inform authorities about suspected abuse when mandated by civil regulations. Are these actions sufficient?
Father Ramsey: It’s beneficial to have these stated clearly, yet these were points that were always understood. It merely makes explicit what sound judgment should have indicated to the bishops, that if an individual commits a crime, that individual must be reported to the civil authorities. That’s how it works.
What has benefited this circumstance is that these issues have been brought to light. Now everyone is informed, and almost everyone is more cautious. Nevertheless, an individual who contacted me earlier today recounted a shocking event that occurred two years ago. I won’t disclose who or where, but one would assume that individuals would be more enlightened by now. I believe these occurrences will continue as long as people believe they can evade consequences.
Brian Fraga is a contributing editor for Our Sunday Visitor.
